[Rough Draft] Regulation on Private Education

[Tredovski]

The World Assembly,

In many companies, the main goal is to make money. No matter the Industry, a companies definition is to make money. The problem I am addressing is their involvement with educational entities like Charter Schools, Universities, Collages, and Primary Education.

For Profits

Definition:

A for-profit corporation is an organization which aims to earn profit through its operations and is concerned with its own interests, unlike those of the public

Differences to Non Profit:
In a non profit, the goal is not to make money, it is usually to further a Social cause. While a For-Profit may (But they won't) further a cause, but that's not what they exist to do. A for profit has its own interests, but a nonprofit is usually is content with others interests. A non profit will fight for a cause, but a for profit will just sell shoes (Amongst other things).

This act will prohibit leftover money from going to the owner or the Parent company. Any and all money is to be reinvested into the university, primary school, or collage and its faculty.
The goal of this regulation is to completely prohibit For Profit educational institutions. This may be confusing for some as some may not know what profit is. But in educational sense, If the owner or the Parent Company benefit Finically from this institution, It would be deemed an unlawful establishment. I cannot stress this enough, the goal here is not to lower the tuition rates of schools. But to rid education of such scams that may be predatory.



The Presumptive Result:

A safer education system which will repulse entrepreneurs from starting Institutions for monetary purposes.
The start of the Integral process to and only to create respectable institutions.
A cycle that says any money made will go back into the university
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a 2nd draft of a Bill I am quite passionate about

Just state your problems or if you don't like it, you can endorse me to see it on the GA voting booth

[Riverpost]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vR1QgBj6vzcf0ujp5A0KpfHx149FG79tyJvMQFUkxP23Mewdpdr_hrENypeCFsImD7oaeMSsEbKUGld/pub

This is a rough draft of a Bill I am quite passionate about

Just state your problems or if you don't like it, you can endorse me to see it on the GA voting booth

You're referencing the World Assembly's opinion in the event that it were to somehow make it to vote and pass, or to some other unknown party, using "you" and "I". It'd be illegal for that, as there aren't 24,000+ Tredovski's voting on it to begin with, or an uninvolved voting party which the WA itself would directly address in law.

You need to slow down, look at other resolutions, discuss their merits, and then gather that later on for your own work. Read the rules for making resolutions - carefully. On top of that, it's typical to post the actual text in the forum, not through Google Docs or some other medium.

That's really just the tip of the iceberg of problems with this, methinks.

[Grays Harbor]

Post the draft here, not a link to it.

[Tredovski]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vR1QgBj6vzcf0ujp5A0KpfHx149FG79tyJvMQFUkxP23Mewdpdr_hrENypeCFsImD7oaeMSsEbKUGld/pub

This is a rough draft of a Bill I am quite passionate about

Just state your problems or if you don't like it, you can endorse me to see it on the GA voting booth

You're referencing the World Assembly's opinion in the event that it were to somehow make it to vote and pass, or to some other unknown party, using "you" and "I". It'd be illegal for that, as there aren't 24,000+ Tredovski's voting on it to begin with, or an uninvolved voting party which the WA itself would directly address in law.

You need to slow down, look at other resolutions, discuss their merits, and then gather that later on for your own work. Read the rules for making resolutions - carefully. On top of that, it's typical to post the actual text in the forum, not through Google Docs or some other medium.

That's really just the tip of the iceberg of problems with this, methinks.

Thanks, I've already made some adjustments with the draft, but I think I forgot to put rough as I am nowhere close to posting this as a proposal.
Thanks so much for the critique, really helps move the mountain!

(P.S the "You" and "I" vocabulary choice was designed for the RD. But thanks, I won't be making that mistake anytime soon)

[The New California Republic]

Any and all financial gains through Universities is prohibited

No. This would prevent University staff from being paid.

[Tredovski]

Any and all financial gains through Universities is prohibited

No. This would prevent University staff from being paid.

Thats not what profit is. Profit is financial gain. A salary is subtracted from total income, profit is developed after all salaries are paid.

[The New California Republic]

No. This would prevent University staff from being paid.

Thats not what profit is. Profit is financial gain. A salary is subtracted from total income, profit is developed after all salaries are paid.

What you said:

Any and all financial gains through Universities is prohibited

Pay is financial gain. Prohibiting "any and all financial gain" prohibits staff pay.

[Tredovski]

Thats not what profit is. Profit is financial gain. A salary is subtracted from total income, profit is developed after all salaries are paid.

What you said:

Any and all financial gains through Universities is prohibited

Pay is financial gain. Prohibiting "any and all financial gain" prohibits staff pay.

Corporate Financial gain, in other words the University can't profit, not the worker. Not all money is a financial gain. If you get a pay check and your ADI is 0, you are not profiting. Of course its a little different for companies if not quite a bit different, but its a similar gist.
But I do understand the confusion, its worded quite poorly. A must fix.

[Bananaistan]

OOC:

... Federal Overlords ...

NS =/= RL, and RL =/= USA. Federal is not a synonym of national.

[Tinhampton]

Proposed complete rewrite as follows: "The World Assembly hereby forbids all institutes of higher education within its member states' respective jurisdictions from turning a net profit in any given financial year." (As it stands, your proposal has a lot of fluff surrounding only one clause that actually does anything; I hope that this is a better version of that clause )

---

I will not say which sector this applies to

Like it or not, every submitted proposal needs a category and a strength - or a category and an area of effect as appropriate.

[Tredovski]

OOC:

... Federal Overlords ...

NS =/= RL, and RL =/= USA. Federal is not a synonym of national.

Changed it to "Federal and State", though "National" won't work as many nations don't manage their Ed. System through the medium of the "Nation"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Many of these universities are also linked to incredibly high tuition rates. High tuition rates are also in direct cahoots with large income gaps and restricting people to the class of their birth.

Tuition fees help cross-subsidise poorer students, expanding access to those without means to pay for their own educations. In that vein, recognise also that public funding of education would direct taxpayer funds to granting certain people – graduates – a massive income boost while imposing costs on those who are not so educated. Similarly, most graduates do not require support to pay their loans because the present discounted value of a university education is positive.

Proposed complete rewrite as follows: "The World Assembly hereby forbids all institutes of higher education within its member states' respective jurisdictions from turning a net profit in any given financial year." (As it stands, your proposal has a lot of fluff surrounding only one clause that actually does anything; I hope that this is a better version of that clause )

This does nothing to curb excessive tuitions; in good times, a university would be forced to expend excess funds before the year. It instead incentivises cyclical tuition rises and falls by lowering the size of institutional savings buffers. Such changes would, if you don't trust university administrations, be biased upwards rather than down.

[Tredovski]

Proposed complete rewrite as follows: "The World Assembly hereby forbids all institutes of higher education within its member states' respective jurisdictions from turning a net profit in any given financial year." (As it stands, your proposal has a lot of fluff surrounding only one clause that actually does anything; I hope that this is a better version of that clause )

---

I will not say which sector this applies to

Like it or not, every submitted proposal needs a category and a strength - or a category and an area of effect as appropriate.

Sorry, poor wording. It was meant to apply to both the Public and Private schools. Public was meant to apply to more corrupt governments. Just so they can't use bumped up tuition to go into the pockets of officials.

[The New California Republic]

What you said:


Pay is financial gain. Prohibiting "any and all financial gain" prohibits staff pay.

Corporate Financial gain, in other words the University can't profit, not the worker. Not all money is a financial gain. If you get a pay check and your ADI is 0, you are not profiting. Of course its a little different for companies if not quite a bit different, but its a similar gist.
But I do understand the confusion, its worded quite poorly. A must fix.

I don't think this will have the effect that you think it will have. Your overall goal here seems to be to stop high tuition fees, but the problem with your strategy is this: you are using the prohibition of profit to somehow stop high tuition fees, but that doesn't necessarily correlate with lower tuition fees, because the University could still charge high tuition fees but intentionally sink all the revenue from the tuition fees into investments into research and facilities, which would mean that the net profit would effectively be zero. Therefore, prohibiting "financial gains" does nothing towards preventing what you are trying to prevent.

[Tredovski]

Many of these universities are also linked to incredibly high tuition rates. High tuition rates are also in direct cahoots with large income gaps and restricting people to the class of their birth.

Tuition fees help cross-subsidise poorer students, expanding access to those without means to pay for their own educations. In that vein, recognise also that public funding of education would direct taxpayer funds to granting certain people – graduates – a massive income boost while imposing costs on those who are not so educated. Similarly, most graduates do not require support to pay their loans because the present discounted value of a university education is positive.

Proposed complete rewrite as follows: "The World Assembly hereby forbids all institutes of higher education within its member states' respective jurisdictions from turning a net profit in any given financial year." (As it stands, your proposal has a lot of fluff surrounding only one clause that actually does anything; I hope that this is a better version of that clause )

This does nothing to curb excessive tuitions; in good times, a university would be forced to expend excess funds before the year. It instead incentivises cyclical tuition rises and falls by lowering the size of institutional savings buffers. Such changes would, if you don't trust university administrations, be biased upwards rather than down.

Again, that is exempt to this rule as profit is not used for that
For a real world example, Harvard is a Non-Profit, and they still give financial support

[Riverpost]

OOC:

NS =/= RL, and RL =/= USA. Federal is not a synonym of national.

Changed it to "Federal and State", though "National" won't work as many nations don't manage their Ed. System through the medium of the "Nation"

Why "State"?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Tuition fees help cross-subsidise poorer students, expanding access to those without means to pay for their own educations. In that vein, recognise also that public funding of education would direct taxpayer funds to granting certain people – graduates – a massive income boost while imposing costs on those who are not so educated. Similarly, most graduates do not require support to pay their loans because the present discounted value of a university education is positive.

Again, that is exempt to this rule as profit is not used for that
For a real world example, Harvard is a Non-Profit, and they still give financial support

Please clarify exactly to what you are responding when responding. My response to your claim is not about your profits-bad mandate. It is about the initial claims about tuition itself that I quoted in the preamble.

[Tredovski]

Corporate Financial gain, in other words the University can't profit, not the worker. Not all money is a financial gain. If you get a pay check and your ADI is 0, you are not profiting. Of course its a little different for companies if not quite a bit different, but its a similar gist.
But I do understand the confusion, its worded quite poorly. A must fix.

I don't think this will have the effect that you think it will have. Your overall goal here seems to be to stop high tuition fees, but the problem with your strategy is this: you are using the prohibition of profit to somehow stop high tuition fees, but that doesn't necessarily correlate with lower tuition fees, because the University could still charge high tuition fees but intentionally sink all the revenue from the tuition fees into investments into research and facilities, which would mean that the net profit would effectively be zero. Therefore, prohibiting "financial gains" does nothing towards preventing what you are trying to prevent.

Sorry for this. I was supposed to include that they are nearly owned and operated by private corporations, didn't include that for some reason.
But for my agenda, no, tuition is not my agenda. This is targeting real world fiascos like Trump University, in-order to remove lobbyists from the education field. But as far as your "Net Zero" analogy goes: Sure, why not? If your charging crazy high tuition, but your tech is state of the arch, your Research is world renown, and your campus is gorgeous? Sure, have at it. The problem here is you think I want lower tuition. Which is my fault, I notice this is a bit wordy in the wrong places...

[The New California Republic]

I don't think this will have the effect that you think it will have. Your overall goal here seems to be to stop high tuition fees, but the problem with your strategy is this: you are using the prohibition of profit to somehow stop high tuition fees, but that doesn't necessarily correlate with lower tuition fees, because the University could still charge high tuition fees but intentionally sink all the revenue from the tuition fees into investments into research and facilities, which would mean that the net profit would effectively be zero. Therefore, prohibiting "financial gains" does nothing towards preventing what you are trying to prevent.

Sorry for this. I was supposed to include that they are nearly owned and operated by private corporations, didn't include that for some reason.
But for my agenda, no, tuition is not my agenda.

You explicitly state that it is:

Any and all financial gains by the University is absolutely prohibited.
This is designed to drive a direct correlation from High Tuition to High Quality

And as I said above, such an argument is completely nonsensical, as financial gains prohibitions in and of themselves do nothing to counter high tuition fees when there are loopholes that are big enough to drive oil tankers through.

[Tredovski]

Sorry for this. I was supposed to include that they are nearly owned and operated by private corporations, didn't include that for some reason.
But for my agenda, no, tuition is not my agenda.

You explicitly state that it is:

Any and all financial gains by the University is absolutely prohibited.
This is designed to drive a direct correlation from High Tuition to High Quality

And as I said above, such an argument is completely nonsensical, as financial gains prohibitions in and of themselves do nothing to counter high tuition fees when there are loopholes that are big enough to drive oil tankers through.

Alright here is the gist.
Fact: I did state that no financial gains are to be made by the University
Fact: I never state I am pushing for lower tuition
When I stated my appolagies for what you think, I forgot to leave out that For profits make money that often goes to something that does not benefit the university, and that they are usually owned by companies for monetary value.
Argument: Any and all profit made must go back into the University, in which it is no longer considered profit. If it goes directly into the hands of the owner, it is an illegal university. It is also illegal for a company to found a university for monetary purposes.
Your argument seems to say "I am confused with your rules" (Which I am fixing), and "What if they charge more for their university and over improve the infestructure" in which I say "Why do you care?". If it is improving, then their is no reason to balk rising tuitions.
I hope this answers your questions.

Also, high tuition and High quality is what Im saying. If the Profits are being reinvested into the university, it has got to improve right. Therefor if this passes: The only reason a tuition will be high, is because their using all that money for the university. So yes, I did say that, you just don't know what it means.

[The New California Republic]

This act will prohibit leftover money from going to the owner or the Parent company. Any and all money is to be reinvested into the university, primary school, or collage and its faculty.

The owner of the University is likely to be part of the faculty. What's to stop the owner from "reinvesting" considerable sums to him/herself as part of the faculty, essentially being profit in everything but name?

Also, please preserve previous drafts in a spoiler, as it isn't helpful when previous drafts just disappear into the ether.

[Tredovski]

This act will prohibit leftover money from going to the owner or the Parent company. Any and all money is to be reinvested into the university, primary school, or collage and its faculty.

The owner of the University is likely to be part of the faculty. What's to stop the owner from "reinvesting" considerable sums to him/herself as part of the faculty, essentially being profit in everything but name?

Also, please preserve previous drafts in a spoiler, as it isn't helpful when previous drafts just disappear into the ether.

No, an owner is like a founder, which is not faculty. If your thinking of CEO than yes(In universities their called presidents).

[The New California Republic]

The owner of the University is likely to be part of the faculty. What's to stop the owner from "reinvesting" considerable sums to him/herself as part of the faculty, essentially being profit in everything but name?

Also, please preserve previous drafts in a spoiler, as it isn't helpful when previous drafts just disappear into the ether.

No, an owner is like a founder, which is not faculty. If your thinking of CEO than yes(In universities their called presidents).

The owner/founder can be part of the faculty...

[Riverpost]

Ignoring all the valid points in a debate, wandering in an endless circle that would make Aristotle cry for mercy?

There's a forum for that.

[Attempted Socialism]

Apart from the issues of what you want (Which is clearly not what you're doing), the entire draft needs to be scrapped and rewritten. It's illegal for branding, the definition is nigh-unreadable, it doesn't do anything by my reading ("This act will" <do something in the far future>, okay, so nothing changes), the "goal" clause is incoherent and the "presumptive result" is useless. I suggest you put down your draft, read the rules, a few passed resolutions and some drafts here to get a feel for the process before continuing with this. Sorry to shoot down an idea you're passionate about merely because of writing (And I get your crusade against tuition; I got to where I am because of adequate public funding of education and actual payment to students rather than loans) but I don't even know how to critique the substance of your draft because it's so rough.